Skip to main content

Table 1 Indicative examples of the influence of electric field stimulation in various human cell types in vitro and in vivo

From: Electric field stimulation for tissue engineering applications

Cell type Power Supply Electric Field Strength (V/cm) Stimulation Duration (h) Preferred Direction Major Result
Chondrocytes DC, Keithley Instruments (USA) 6 3 Bidirectional (dependent on passage of cells) EF directed migration was influenced by passage [27]
Keratinocytes DC & AC PASCO Scientific (USA) 0.4 at 1.6 or 160 Hz (AC) / 1 (DC) 1 Cathode Verification of electromechanical model for migration [93]
Mammary epithelial cells DC, Pine (USA) 0.13–1.0 6 Anode Clustered cells were more sensitive to alignment, but migrated slower than isolated cells [83]
Osteoblasts DC, Biometra (Germany) 0.15–0.45 7 Anode Upregulation of ion channel gene, associating Ca2+ with migration speed [96]
Peripheral blood lymphocytes DC, Agilent Technologies (USA) 0.15–2 0.5–2.0 Cathode Directed migration in vitro and in vivo and activated intracellular kinase pathways [37]
Neuroblastoma cells DC, AMPI (Israel) 0.045–4.5 4 Anode Enhancement of cell mobility [61]
Bone marrow stem cells DC, Glassman FC (USA) 0.2–5 15 Cathode Donor did not influence migration direction and morphological changes but affected response time to EF, migration speed and cell viability [22]